Asunto: Basketball Suggestions

yeah, i don't like much the 35 games as one can barely run a camp during the season. 30 games would be better, IMO.

the statistics as you mentioned are very high. I hope they will change/adjust it for next season as they "learn" what players will average.

Don't playoff games still count for that? If so then 35 games shouldn't be too much of an issue for reaching that point.

bonus is always given after the regular season is over. So I dont think playoffs are counted.

But there are final league prizes as well. That can't be given out before the playoffs.

Going on with bonuses, I think the amount given for statistical bonuses should be reduced. The current method greatly favors playing players for maximum minutes to get as much stats as possible.

I say this because of the distribution of prize money in II.1. The team that earned the most money from prizes was Minnesota Blizzard with just over 5 million. This is an inactive team whose players played the entire time and the team placed 12th of 16. This team ended up earning 2 million more than the second place team because of this.

Players > Statistics > Totals

Show totals instead of % for FG, 3PT, FT

I think with the limitations of the number of allowed players without receiving a fine in combination with 2 allowed camps per season VERSES a relatively short season really puts a manager in a bind, especially if that manager has to play 3 relegation games at the end of the season. Combine that with the fact there aren't a whole lot of "great" players out there to substitute player in camp with. I'd like to see a few extra days added at the end of season or maybe an all star break to accommodate camps a bit better.

And the overall lack of new players that have height. The market looks like a PG sale on most days.

Now that people realized that the players keep growing after age 18-19, there might be a chance that soon many players will grow more than they managers predicted, and veteran PG will be the position in deficit.

-1 to skeptimist's suggestion to increase the season.
If anything, the 10 day gap at the end of the season is too long.
Cut it to 7.

-1 to eliza Putinalol inability to comprehend a very BASIC example of WHY a short season can be detrimental to some managers.

Perhaps had you "put in a lot" during your election process, i might have respected your lack of understanding. Just saying....self serving isn't my thing...rock on.

We are all on even terms.
I understand your why, I disagree with it.
I think the "offseason" should leave room for 1 camp and a manager has to figure out how to squeeze in a second camp into the schedule.

It would be a challenge that would actually make a manager MANAGE.

Isn't that the point that YOU don't understand?

Easy there skep. Speaking with mod hat.

In basketball, though camps are 2 days shorter, you miss more games, but everyone has to deal with this. It really isn't worthwhile to keep any player that is worth something on the market as a third string player, so it is difficult while running a camp (unless you are playing players in their 20's while training future starters). In addition, it is best to leave room on the roster for future pulls since you can't sell players as often in basketball. Combined with a possible (some people have said likely) injury, it could be hard to field 5 players.

With that said, the short schedule is one of the highlights of basketball, and I don't think teams playing for relegation have two weeks in hockey and soccer. Looking at the schedule of a team that played in the relegation round in hockey, there were 6 days from the last (second) relegation game to the first game of the next season. That doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement; it just means that the other sports are no better.

As for the roster size problem, in soccer, I often have to hire all of the bad players from my sports academy to fill out my team while running a camp, so that isn't unique to basketball either.

The original 18 and 19 year olds did not grow at that age. If you put the players in a position where there is a margin of error of 5 where the player would still be in the right position, there shouldn't be a problem. A 160 cm 15 year old is a safe bet as a PG, and a player in the upper 170's could possibly be a PG but would be better as an SG, as long as the qualities work out well enough.

I used a PG that was 2 centimeters too tall (my 3 good original players were all under 205 cm and unsuited to be PF's), and he was one of the best PG's for the first few seasons (I'm sure there was some penalty, but it's not the end of the world).

Well thought, well spoken.